Which this year Gonzaga getting a 3 seed on that schedule was based on name (and year's past) alone and set them up to be upset which is what happened. Two teams in this tournament for sure got seedings based on name and past history. Gonzaga and KU getting a 3 and 4 seed while Arkansas and St. John's got a 4 and 5 seed were bad looks for the committee in my opinion.
St. John's was definitely underseeded. I think most the metrics had KU in line for a 4 seed. They were very inconsistent but had a lot of great wins -- Arizona, ISU, Houston, at Tech when Tech was fully healthy, Tennessee on a neutral court. Gonzaga actually finished 7th in NET, and obviously that's a computer system that doesn't take reputation or past seasons into account. Also, they did lose one of their most important players midway through conference play. When Huff was healthy, their only loss was to Michigan, and he and Ike were a heck of a combo in the frontcourt. This wasn't one of their best teams, for sure, but I don't think their seed was all that out of line.
Except from Jan to march*
For beating Bama, Kentucky, and ucla and thats it, all year?
Did Duke play any real competition last season in an awful ACC? Did the Vegas teams of the early 90s get great competition in their league? It's crazy to suggest that a decade of great tourney results is a fluke and that they only do well in March because they luck into a good seed.
If OU had a top 7 NET ranking, I would not argue that we don't deserve a great seed. And again, you are going off one year in which their noncon schedule was somewhat down by their standards -- and yet still top 30 nationally. Comparing that to our noncon scheduling is crazy. And they didn't "play three teams all year." They were 7-2 in Q1 games. We played 14 Q1 games and only managed four wins.
Easy to have high efficiency metrics for a high NET when they play Seattle (don't even know their mascot), pacific, San Francisco, loyola marymount, Portland, San Diego, pepperdine 2x each a year..
Advanced metrics all take level of competition into account.
Apparently not well enough. We should join the WCC in basketball only and coast every year too
Like I said last night, with Moser as our coach, my guess is that if we played their exact schedule over the past 5 years (noncon and conference), we likely would average 8-10 regular season losses. And that may or may not be good enough to make the tourney. Last year they had 8 regular season losses and were an 8-seed.
Exactly. I don't even have to research most of my claims here bc you can just intuitively feel the fraud (i knew their quad 1s were going to be poop trash).
Gonzaga played 8 times against tourney teams all season.
And what’s your point? Is anyone arguing that we don’t play in a much better conference? I honestly have no idea what your point is. You started off by saying that they have been one of the most overrated programs in the county for decades. What does our conference schedule have to do with that? If you think they are overrated, check and see what their record has been against good competition over the last decade. If you think every metric and resume based system used to evaluate teams is somehow wrong solely with respect to Gonzaga, that’s certainly an odd argument to make. There are a lot of teams in mid major conferences, and none of the rest regularly (a) beat highly ranked teams in the noncon, (b) advance deep into the NCAA tournament, and (c) grade well in both predictive and resume based metrics. Perhaps they are the exception because they are, in fact, a great program.
Nebraska also had 5 sub par to awful years before this one possibly flash in the pan season. Iowa st. has been good for the last 4-5 years and TJ seems to be a really good coach but is he about to bolt for a "bigger" job?
I agree with this to a point. Can we achieve what Iowa st and Nebraska have done with our budget? Hell yes. That’s why we need to change coaches.
Simple as that.
